News:

http://FreeFromFuel.com HHO DVD reduced to only 29.90 Euros. Get it now..Please also make sure you have a valid email Adress over here in your profile, because we need to send out an important Newsletter in Mid of February and you might miss it then...Stay tuned !

Hi Dieter: Not sure these are the type of magnets you want but are close to the size and multiple thickness up to .25 KJ Magnetics has them and sizes and price follow: BY0Y01 2.00 X 2.00 X .0625 $ 9.36 BY0Y02 2.00 X 2.00 X .1250 $15.41 BY0Y04 2.00 X 2.00 X .2500 $2747

These are magnetized through the thickness or the faces

Hope that might help you out. They are real prompt in mailing out the orders as I have used them in the past.

when the stator and the rotor align : - the 'Rotor-iron C-core' , which is to divert the magnetic-flux-path of the 'Stator-magnet' that moves into it, that 'could be the main part where the motor would get stuck, - Although, I assume it does not divert all of the magnetic-flux-path - maybe instead of the 'Rotor-iron C-core', you could affect the 'Stator-magnet' with diamagnetics, or, whatever other ways

I have always wondered what are the pulse-motors that are continually mentioned on this site, and other similar sites , I wonder if this motor is what they mean by pulse-motor

However, I now get the impression that magnet-motors( if any work, I never built my magnet-motor-3.5, or any at all ) are only worthwhile as impressive novelties, they have no practical potential / application, since any magnets will wear out

I was thinking of maybe starting my own thread, just to type my own vague version of your idea( or is this what they mean by pulse-motors ),

Hi Guest, thanks for your interest. Basicly, the C-core of the rotor, that temporarily steals the flux of the stator, is ferromagneticly attracted. This causes high friction losses, but does not consume energy magneticly, because basicly attraction is the same on both sides.

Furthermore the significant, special feature here is a naturally high fieldstrength in the coil/magnet stator, that is lowered by the rotor, hence the term negative induction. This very reversal of induction principle opens up a whole bunch of exploitable opportunities to overcome the flaws of conventional designs.

A pulse motor is something very diffrent, usually refers to a Motor that has electromagnets (coils) that get short DC pulses from a Transistor or other timing device, often they use rather the collapsing field than the pulse itself, to gain efficiency. Like eg. Bedini SSG.

I would be thankful if you do not start a new thread, based on my design unless you really understand it and you can offer an optimation. Mind you I am working for years on this. It would hurt to see it screwed in such a way. Its currwnt ignorance hurts already, but knowing there are some people, just reading, makes it worth at all.

To understand this concept requires not much. Magnetism and Induction. There is even the "I still don't get it" section, I hope you didn't skip that? ^^

Once you or anybody understands this design, I can guarranty it will make you understand pretty much all magnet motors, and if or why they may work or not.

yes, your explanation of how the 'Rotor-iron C-core' will not cause the rotor to stay stuck to the stator seems logical, as best as I can visualize it

the design in the thread I'm about to post, is not related to your design( your design reminded me of the term pulse-motors, I have been wanting to post ideas about pulse-motors in general )

Prior to your explanation of what are commonly referred to as pulse-motors, something I know very little about( and, the usage of the collapsing-field ), I loosely( without thinking ) thought that if I post any pulse-motor like design, that it could relate to your design

If you ever observe any similarities( I could never design anything even nearly similar to your design ) you, or anyone could let me know, and my post could be deleted, or my thread closed Most of my threads usually only last 1 day

( I only post designs/ideas on my own threads, due to the possibility of post-deletion on this site, which is available on some threads )

Let me try to explain: While indeed the C-core on the rotor steals the flux from the stators PM-Coil fluxpath and does force the fieldstrength drop in the coil core, this current flow and its field practically increases and decreases the permeability of the core, resulting in an increased petmeability while approaching and a decreased permeability while moving away. So the flux will stick longer to the stator while the rotor is approaching (and that means it will less azteact the C-core/Rotor), and when moving away the flux will also remain longer on the Rotors C-Core, because the coil core, due to increasing field strength, has a flux-blocking tendency.

So it's a brake, Lenz, out of his grave, still a very difficult person he is ^^

However, I have already a particular solution to this undesired sideeffect. That being said, it's becomeing increasingly difficult to simulate these inteactive and dynamic processes in Femm.

Bottom line, if Inventors would have given up because of frequent failure, we would still be useing torches to light up our caves.

What seems to be the solution to the problem described above, are two PMs on the rotor, above and below the stators coil core, polarized as a "3way crossroad" that acts due to the dynamic permeability of the core as some kind of magnetic transistor.

So the dropping fieldstrength in the core does no longer lower the attraction of the stator, because the flux will pass trough these two PMs of the rotor. That way the rotor is attracted additionally.

...I have tested conditions with decreasing fieldstrength (rotor comes closer) and carefully added up all involved attraction strengths. I did the same with increasing fieldstrength (rotor moves away). I achieved a slight gain of like 15% in that attraction during approaching is higher than during departure. This is without useing the current flow.

But Femm really makes it tricky. Results differ, depending on coil core features. According to Femm I should best use a ceramic 5 PM as / instead of the coils iron core... weird but maybe worth trying.

Vidar, no, no scripts. I just simulated various stages of the cycle, and also simulated the reactive fields by using relatively weak PMs instead of iron core for the coil core, to see the LIKE superimposition on approaching and the OPPOSITE superimposition on departire of the rotor.

However, there is the flaw mentioned above. I need some time to come up with a proper solution, gotta give it a break.

Meanwhile a paradoxon has gotten my attention, on how to extract energy from PMs in a even simpler way, see download section if interested.